American politics

The many species of crazy tree

IS CRAZINESS an inescapable part of American politics? Rick Perlstein thinks the answer is yes, because Americans are crazy. Peter Suderman thinks the answer is yes, because politics is crazy. The question would benefit from international comparisons. Are Americans politically crazier than other nations? Instinctively, one might say yes, compared to Swedes or Japanese, and no, compared to Russians or Pakistanis. But polling organisations spend surprisingly little time trying to find out what percentage of the people in different countries are nuts. When they do, the answers are less exciting than one might hope. Only 6% of Russians believe in the existence of UFOs. (Though I seem to have met most of them, and the Russian newsmediaseemsstrangelysolicitous of their interests.) If Japanese express their political opinions in relatively subdued terms, that may be because they have more important things on their minds, like avoiding being misidentified as gropers on bullet trains. And while a large percentage of Palestinians believe America may have been behind the September 11th attacks, so do a large percentage of Mexicans; the question seems to function as a proxy for "Do you like America?"

There's certainly plenty of evidence for the commonplace observation that Americans are exceptionally prone to apocalyptic conspiracy theories. Thomas Pynchon, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Joan Didion, Edgar Allen Poe, Tom Wolfe, Nathanael West, and Quentin Tarantino can't all be wrong. And Mr Perlstein is right that while strange theories proliferate on both the far left and the far right, it is on the right that they have been mainstreamed in recent decades as tools of mass politics. If there ever was a conservative equivalent of the firewall that segregates Noam Chomsky and Lenora Fulani from mainstream liberal politics, it seems to have broken down a long time ago. The belief that the Bush administration was behind September 11th may be the left-wing equivalent of the "birther" myths. But add in the claims that Mr Obama is Muslim, that he wants to kill your grandparents, that his administration plans to replace the dollar with a "world currency", and half a dozen others; then, going back a few years, the Swift Boaters' treason accusations and the drug-dealing and murder allegations deployed against the Clintons, and the scale begins to tilt. And there is no left-wing equivalent to the way that Fox News, conservative opinion leaders, and Republican politicians have legitimised these absurd conspiracy theories and made them central to their political strategies.

But while the craziness seems at the moment to be localised on the American right, it is also part of a broader international phenomenon. From the Netherlands to Italy to Thailand to Russia to Venezuela, blunt, plainspoken nationalist politicians have engendered populist movements that seem intent on breaking down rule-bound governance and turning politics into a reality-TV free-for-all. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders energises right-of-center voters by casting off the strictures of "politically correct" discourse, inviting people to say "what they really think" about the Netherlands' Islamic minority. Much of the time what they really think turns out to be bigoted garbage, but the resulting melee has catapulted Mr Wilders's upstart political party to the top of the heap, passing long-established parties like Labor and the Christian Democrats. The amazing Berlusconi phenomenon has transformed Italy into a cross between "The Apprentice" and the Howard Stern show. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Thai prime minister, and Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, used long television diatribes to build political popularity among the lower classes that allowed them to sweep aside constitutional restrictions. In response, their urban middle-class oppositions abandoned the constitution as well, and took to the streets. In Russia and Iran, we see the same kind of fault lines: nationalist firebrands with massive lower-class backing using control of television and the nomenklatura to brush constitutional limits aside; the urban middle classes and intelligentsia forced into the streets to defend their understanding of democratic politics, and ultimately crushed.

The temperature of democratic politics all over the world certainly seems to be rising lately. Mr Suderman's answer is that one should attempt to limit the scope of society over which politics holds sway. But there is, of course, only one way to limit the scope of politics: through politics. People who have prominent roles in the public sphere, such as politicians, television journalists, and even widely-read bloggers, have a responsibility not to lie, distort the truth, throw swastikas around, or aid and abet those who do. The best we can do is to keep plugging away, trying to make politics more serious and responsible, a little bit at a time.

There has been some empirical research on the tendency for people to hold “fundamentalist” beliefs - beliefs that are impervious to reason or evidence – albeit in relation to religious fundamentalism rather than political fundamentalism.

In March last year The Economist reported (“Where angels no longer fear to tread. The science of religion”, 19 March 2008) how the tendency amongst human beings to hold religious beliefs may be modelled in terms of evolutionary psychology.

Significantly, the article reported that:

“Dr Wilson [of Binghamton University, in New York,] himself has studied the relationship between social insecurity and religious fervour, and discovered that, regardless of the religion in question, it is the least secure societies that tend to be most fundamentalist.”

Could it be that religious fundamentalism is mirrored by fundamentalism in other areas? And for the same reason?

In a secure environment, reasoned argument is safe and mutually beneficial strategy. But in an insecure “winner-takes-all” society, compromise - and even the willingness to debate - is risky. The sweet voice of reason runs the risk of extinction in the face of more aggressive strategies. (The line often attributed to Hermann Goering - “Whenever I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my revolver” – comes to mind.)

Although physical extinction is not at issue here, the extinction of one’s interests and the interests of one’s family may be.

Thus, the adoption of winner-takes-all economic and political systems - which raise both risks and rewards - may have the unintended consequence of encouraging people to adopt intransigent positions – and correspondingly to disdain evidence, reason and open-minded debate.

> And there is no left-wing equivalent to the way that Fox News [...] legitimised these absurd conspiracy theories

Though of course, if you do listen to Fox News, they will tell you that it is precisely the opposite: all media which don't focus on these issues are part of a "liberal media" designed to influence your politics.

It's a self-contained and self-consistent world view, and because of that essentially impossible to change. The only thing that is required to take on faith is the assumption that large numbers of Americans hate America, or are so stupid as to unwittingly support those who hate America. This might seem an unlikely thing to swallow, but then, non-Fox-News viewers must be compelled to think that the massive number of Fox News viewers are equally duped.

So one way or the other, I'm forced to believe something I'm very reluctant to believe: that a large number of Americans are genuinely duped by a massive conspiracy. It may be conservatives or liberals, or it may be both, but I can't find a solution that preserves the dignity of both. I'm reluctant to reach this conclusion, as a defense against unnecessary cynicism, but I can't seem to escape it any more.

"The Economist is a magazine where the readership is in general smarter than the authors."

I am fascinated by your use of the word "smarter" here. In what ways do you consider yourself to be smarter? How do you believe that your mind works to process and bind raw information into conclusions better than the authors of the Economist?

"And so it is with the blogs. How many of the regulars here would actually read the warmed-over kasha if there isn't a comment section?"

You know, the bloggers here receive a lot of public flak from some of the very vocal commenters here, so I am going to do the opposite and publicly let you bloggers know that I appreciate your postings, and in fact I would continue to read them even without the comments. While I acknowledge that they do not count as the "final" or "most correct" stance on an issue, they do provide nice mind candy for me when I need a break from the things I am working on during the day.

"The bloodsport of fighting fellow commenters over a political point..."

I think that the fact that you find the "bloodsport" and "fighting" to be the major draw of you to these forums says more about you than it does about the forums. :-)

@ALT
Well said. I remain intrigued by the extent to which messages have an unintended (opposite) consequence (probably not a conspiracy since it's too complicated).

People are/have been/will be drawn to people who say things that affirm their own beliefs. Perhaps this is the main story for Obama's popularity. But in a two-party system, if you run from the GOP the outcome looks the same as being attracted to the DP.

Anecdotal observation: lots of people are running from the GOP. The Prez isn't bad at attracting people either.

The outcome: for the time being, it really stinks on the right. Let's move to the left. Doesn't take a conspiracy.

So what about all the peaceful protesters during equivalent events during the Bush years who were arrested for wearing various variations on the "No Bush" T-shirt (and I'm not talking about Nazi comparisons here)?

That's right, they were removed and oftentimes arrested, for simply trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. Allowing these "gun enthusiasts" to do their thing by comparison is downright offensive, and ludicrous.

Cherny. . .I want to thank you for maintaining civility etc. with me. I'm aware I sometimes let my rhetoric get a little overheated, and for an issue like nationwide health-care I think that's inappropriate. However, I must again rebut.

If the question centers on the specifically POLITICAL implications of "courage vs cowardice" then I think there's a true and (frankly) obvious answer (the one that FiscalConservative describes without having to define). I'll rewrite your sentence following "In a political sense, courage is. . .":

In a political sense, courage is putting politics aside.

It's not complicated. This is not to say that I think that's exactly what Obama is doing -- I think there's no question the politics are being calculated. That's not to say I have any kind of problem with it -- politics isn't inherently "evil" (or whatever), but we come to it largely through rhetoric, which (when well-executed) inflames us. And when we're inflamed, our biases take hold. Why this has the capacity to surprise -- and thereby distract -- us more or less every time is beyond me.

> For example, Rush L. has (IMHO) driven some people on the right to the center and some in the center to the left.

At least for the moment, I think you're correct. But at other times, this narrative has brought centrists to the right, perhaps because it tells such a compelling story of American dominance (and fear of losing it).

And it brings the American liberals to the center. Bill Clinton campaigned on the "third way". Obama tried the same, but the lesson that the right drew from Clinton was that you can accuse Democrats of being on the far left no matter what their actions are. It becomes quite tiresome to some (we knew you were going to accuse Sotomayor of being the most liberal justice ever, regardless of her stances, so we tuned you out), but it certainly worked to create Republican dominance from 1994 to 2006.

2010 will be another data point, though its real significance will be hard to judge, having come after the "perfect storm" election of 2008.

Cherny. . .I want to take from your post (with which I think I tend to agree, though probably not for the same reasons as you, and probably I'd infer different things from it than you would if someone else had written it) but anyway I want to take from it that you allow that there are "left-wingers" who are NOT nuts. Say it isn't so!

Well done. Perhaps a little naive when it comes to '...responsibility not to lie, distort...' since politicians deliberately lie and distort to achieve their objective (re-election).

You don't mention the outcome or extent to which a "nut case" for a cause invokes a shift to the opposite cause or position. For example, Rush L. has (IMHO) driven some people on the right to the center and some in the center to the left. Who wants to be associated with such a lunatic?

I happen to agree with your statement:
'And there is no left-wing equivalent to the way that Fox News, conservative opinion leaders, and Republican politicians have legitimised these absurd conspiracy theories and made them central to their political strategies.'

If correct, then is the swing to the left more a result of a push from the right than a pull from the left?

Just to address a wholly peripheral personal bugbear in the article - a UFO is just an Unidentified Flying Object, not a synonym for "alien spaceship". Assuming it can sometimes be tricky to tell which of a plane/balloon/satellite/meteorite/weather phenomenon/light reflection off clouds/etc. something is, it would be rather strange *not* to believe in UFOs.

I remember when the Bronco's won the Super Bowl a group of party goers flipped a car over on a downtown street. One or two started doing it, and several others watched and thought, "hey, that's a good idea." Others didn't join in, but chanted, "flip the car." Still others quietly slipped away. Drowned out were the handful of people saying, "not such a good idea."

I don't think there was a conspiracy there either. It was just something that someone started, and other joined because they wanted to be part of it.

machiavelli999, i agree with most of that, but actually i think that glenn beck actually knows what he's doing and is being a willful provocateur specifically to garner ratings, and it's sarah palin that i'm not sure about whether she believes all or most of what she's saying. i'm sure she realizes what sorts of things she says will help to draw attention to her, but i have no idea what she believes to be true or not. i do think she has no qualms about lying, though.

"Lack of evidence is seized even more eagerly, to show just how powerful the conspiracy is—it can hide its tracks whenever it chooses." -http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/

Brand identity is everything when it comes to these issues. It's much the same as the way people identify with their religious beliefs/practices, finding them reasonable, but the beliefs/practices of another religion have no power to convince.

I'm getting to this a little late... but cherny wrote "Left-wingers are the ones who fear." Actually, it's the other way around: right-wingers are demonstrably more fearful, according to a recent study.

"[I]ndividuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War"

I think the most important question here is does the prominence of the Glenn Becks and the Fox News of the world just a random abberation. Simply the free market filling the need for crazy talk with demagogues.

Or is this a coordinated conspiracy to dupe the American people? My guess it's a little bit of both there is definitely a strong conspiratorial element to it.

Fox News and people like Newt Gingrich are all a part of this conspiracy. When I see Newt Gingrich sit there on Meet the Press and blatantly confirm that the medical plan has death panels, you know he knows better but he is feeding the anger of the American people by playing on their fears. So, there are a lot of people who I know know better, but are saying these lies just for political gain. I would also add Sarah Palin to this group. In fact, the entire political class of the far right is in this conspiracy.

On the other hand, there are the Glenn Becks of the world. The right wing political class loves Glenn Beck and laughs at Glenn Beck. They love him because he is basically a tool to spread fear. They laugh at him because he actually believes in what he says and is delusional. I don't think Glenn Beck is a bad person. I think he is just delusional.

So, we have a conspiracy and unwitting accomplices of the conspiracy. The conspiracy is small and they let the unwitting accomplices like Beck do most of the work.

About the "birther" myth, we learn from a Nov 2008 CSM article that:
“People are going after electors now because they can only vote for a qualified candidate, and [Obama] hasn’t shown he’s qualified,” says Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., a Democrat and lawyer who has filed two lawsuits calling Obama’s citizenship into question. “I think we have enough trouble – we don’t need a fake president.”

According to Wikipedia, these lawsuits constitute the first legal challenge of then candidate Obama's citizenship. By a Democrat.

Mr Economist, you conclude that "bloggers, have a responsibility not to lie, distort the truth". Will you then retract your claim that this citizenship controversy is a right wing fabrication?

Reason drives unreasonable people mad. The fact that we have a reasonable President leaves few other tactics than threats and fear. Carrying guns to presidential rallies? Our last president had people removed for wearing offensive t-shirts.

Just today I read about a law passed in Georgia that mandated - MANDATED - vaginal ultrasounds prior to early term abortions. So trying to get more people healthcare gets you called a Nazi, but a law requiring a doctor to in effect rape a woman is being a loving caring Christian?